3 ms·

Well China has outspent Tesla by a massive margin. So has Russia. So has NASA. Same with Europe. Not to mention Boeing, ULA, or other long time rocket technol

Well China has outspent Tesla by a massive margin. So has Russia. So has NASA. Same with Europe. Not to mention Boeing, ULA, or other long time rocket technology suppliers. So there are examples of large extended spending budgets (on rocketry programs, specifically) with nowhere near as much progress as SpaceX has done with far fewer people, less time, and less money. The difference really begs the question of how he did it. And I think the answer is he did many things differently. He didn't just have a clear vision of reusability, but also the time, cost and complexity savings of vertical integration, the faster progress that comes of tolerating intermediate failures as a source of fast feedback, and casting his overworked employees as crusaders in a meaningful mission to best the best, and turn sci-fi into reality, all with contagious enthusiasm. He also seems to have a secret superpower for plowing through government red tape and bureaucracy. I have no idea how he does that, but both with Tesla and SpaceX it has made a significant difference. Easy not to notice that, but a lot of ambitions have been ground down with resource attrition on that mountain.

ProfessorLayton 4y ago
>So there are examples of large extended spending budgets (on rocketry programs, specifically) with nowhere near as much progress as SpaceX has done with far fewer people, less time, and less money. at least in the US, a lot of the budget is really glorified government pork, unfortunately. Boeing and even NASA have to spend their money sub optimally in order to secure future funding from government bodies.
pclmulqdq 4y ago
> Well China has outspent Tesla by a massive margin. > So has Russia. So has NASA. Same with Europe. > Not to mention Boeing, ULA, or other long time rocket technology suppliers. Do you have sources for these claims with respect to rocket technology? SpaceX has raised $10 billion to spend pretty much only on rockets - again, the easiest part of space technology by far. The rest of the money is going to comm satellites, which are also know to be a pretty easy technology. The budgets for these space agencies are bigger, but they are also spending on much more complicated things like science mission payloads. Not to mention all the pork. > He also seems to have a secret superpower for plowing through government red tape and bureaucracy. I have no idea how he does that, but both with Tesla and SpaceX it has made a significant difference. Easy not to notice that, but a lot of ambitions have been ground down with resource attrition on that mountain. That superpower is lying. When you claim that you have capabilities you don't, they pay you to develop them until they figure out you were BS-ing in the first place. This is what happened with the rural broadband subsidies.
- Nevermark 4y ago
  SpaceX has sunk enormous sums into building and launching thousands of their own satellites. Roughly one half of all operating satellites. Their investment dollars up to now have also covered development of their next rocket, with planned capabilities of refueling in space and round trips, including site landings, to anywhere in the solar system, and have a greater lift capacity than the SLS, beyond their current achievements in rocketry. They also had to, from scratch, develop an organization, build out design, manufacturing and flight control capacities, their own launch facilities including unique water landing platforms. NASA already had extensive facilities and capabilities, prior to their latest rocket project. Of course, both NASA and SpaceX were able to leverage NASA's previous experience with rocketry. (I am a fan, not a critic of NASA.) > NASA reports the official cost of the SLS as $11.8 billion [1] > NASA estimates will cost $13.8 billion to develop through its first crewed launch in 2024. [1] That doesn't cover the costs of additional rockets. Which get discarded after every launch. > each SLS/Orion launch will have a price tag of about $4.1 billion. [2] When you consider the cost of NASA launches vs. SpaceX launches, there are now between an order or two of magnitudes between them. Which is reflected in SpaceX launch prices. Starship will eliminate the second stage losses, resulting in even cheaper per launch costs. I cannot think of another time in history where a company has managed to so decisively leave all competition, including major strategic nation-state initiatives, behind. [1] https://www.planetary.org/space-policy/cost-of-sls-and-orion#:~:text=NASA%20reports%20the%20official%20cost%20of%20the%20SLS,formulation%2Fdesign%20and%20%249.1%20billion%20for%20development%20and%20implementation%29 https://www.planetary.org/space-policy/cost-of-sls-and-orion.... [2] https://www.space.com/artemis-1-space-launch-system-rocket-cost#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20report%2C%20NASA%20will%20end%20up,have%20a%20price%20tag%20of%20about%20%244.1%20billion https://www.space.com/artemis-1-space-launch-system-rocket-c.... -- EDIT -- Not sure how I missed the opening paragraph of [1]: > From its inception in 2011 through the year of its first flight, the Space Launch System rocket program has cost $23.8 billion. The Orion deep space capsule has cost $20.4 billion since the program began in 2006. Related ground infrastructure upgrades cost an additional $5.7 billion since 2012. In total, NASA spent $49.9 billion on these programs between 2006 and their first test launch in 2022. $49.9 Billion!

ProfessorLayton 4y ago

>So there are examples of large extended spending budgets (on rocketry programs, specifically) with nowhere near as much progress as SpaceX has done with far fewer people, less time, and less money. at least in the US, a lot of the budget is really glorified government pork, unfortunately. Boeing and even NASA have to spend their money sub optimally in order to secure future funding from government bodies.

pclmulqdq 4y ago

> Well China has outspent Tesla by a massive margin. > So has Russia. So has NASA. Same with Europe. > Not to mention Boeing, ULA, or other long time rocket technology suppliers. Do you have sources for these claims with respect to rocket technology? SpaceX has raised $10 billion to spend pretty much only on rockets - again, the easiest part of space technology by far. The rest of the money is going to comm satellites, which are also know to be a pretty easy technology. The budgets for these space agencies are bigger, but they are also spending on much more complicated things like science mission payloads. Not to mention all the pork. > He also seems to have a secret superpower for plowing through government red tape and bureaucracy. I have no idea how he does that, but both with Tesla and SpaceX it has made a significant difference. Easy not to notice that, but a lot of ambitions have been ground down with resource attrition on that mountain. That superpower is lying. When you claim that you have capabilities you don't, they pay you to develop them until they figure out you were BS-ing in the first place. This is what happened with the rural broadband subsidies.

Nevermark 4y ago
SpaceX has sunk enormous sums into building and launching thousands of their own satellites. Roughly one half of all operating satellites. Their investment dollars up to now have also covered development of their next rocket, with planned capabilities of refueling in space and round trips, including site landings, to anywhere in the solar system, and have a greater lift capacity than the SLS, beyond their current achievements in rocketry. They also had to, from scratch, develop an organization, build out design, manufacturing and flight control capacities, their own launch facilities including unique water landing platforms. NASA already had extensive facilities and capabilities, prior to their latest rocket project. Of course, both NASA and SpaceX were able to leverage NASA's previous experience with rocketry. (I am a fan, not a critic of NASA.) > NASA reports the official cost of the SLS as $11.8 billion [1] > NASA estimates will cost $13.8 billion to develop through its first crewed launch in 2024. [1] That doesn't cover the costs of additional rockets. Which get discarded after every launch. > each SLS/Orion launch will have a price tag of about $4.1 billion. [2] When you consider the cost of NASA launches vs. SpaceX launches, there are now between an order or two of magnitudes between them. Which is reflected in SpaceX launch prices. Starship will eliminate the second stage losses, resulting in even cheaper per launch costs. I cannot think of another time in history where a company has managed to so decisively leave all competition, including major strategic nation-state initiatives, behind. [1] https://www.planetary.org/space-policy/cost-of-sls-and-orion#:~:text=NASA%20reports%20the%20official%20cost%20of%20the%20SLS,formulation%2Fdesign%20and%20%249.1%20billion%20for%20development%20and%20implementation%29 https://www.planetary.org/space-policy/cost-of-sls-and-orion.... [2] https://www.space.com/artemis-1-space-launch-system-rocket-cost#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20report%2C%20NASA%20will%20end%20up,have%20a%20price%20tag%20of%20about%20%244.1%20billion https://www.space.com/artemis-1-space-launch-system-rocket-c.... -- EDIT -- Not sure how I missed the opening paragraph of [1]: > From its inception in 2011 through the year of its first flight, the Space Launch System rocket program has cost $23.8 billion. The Orion deep space capsule has cost $20.4 billion since the program began in 2006. Related ground infrastructure upgrades cost an additional $5.7 billion since 2012. In total, NASA spent $49.9 billion on these programs between 2006 and their first test launch in 2022. $49.9 Billion!